Unmarried couples who live together are being advised to draw up a cohabitation agreement outlining their property rights to prevent any legal battles further down the line should the couple split up in the future.

The advice comes after the Supreme Court today ruled that a man who left his partner nearly 20 years ago was not entitled to half the value of the home that remained in their joint names. The Supreme Court decided that he was only entitled to 10% of the value.

Leonard Kernott (Respondent) and Patricia Jones (Appellant) purchased and owned a bungalow in joint names but had never married. When they split up, Mr Kernott left the property and Ms Jones remained there.

Ms Jones claimed she was entitled to more from the property because she had put down the initial deposit and paid the mortgage for 13 years after Mr Kernott had left. However during the time they were living together, Mr Kernott had paid the mortgage and added an extension to the property which had substantially increased its value.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that the value of the home should be split 90/10 in favour of Ms Jones and Lord Kerr J commented that the decision was "a fair one between the parties".

Lindsey Britland, partner of the Family department here at McHale & Co Solicitors said: ““Unmarried couples who live together have no specific legal rights over shared property unless this was indicated at the time of the purchase or within an agreement subsequently. This is the case even when there are children to consider. With an estimated 2million unmarried couples living together in the country, such cases are not unusual. This particular case draws attention to the complications, both legally and financially, that unmarried couples can find themselves in when they separate and are forced to deal with dividing the assets.”

“This is a judgment intended to bringing about a fair sharing of the joint assets of a cohabiting couple, taking into account the actual contribution of each party.”

“It will affect unmarried couples not only in this country but perhaps globally. By sanctioning the courts to adjust beneficial interests in a property having regard to all the circumstances of the case and what would be fair between the parties; similarities can be seen between this and the way the courts deal with married couples. This may be seen by some as watering down the importance of marriage/ civil partnerships.